ESA to Sue MI Governor

Video Game Industry to Sue Michigan's Governor (thanks WarCry) has word on the ESA's efforts at countering recent legislation aimed at criminalizing the sale of Adult and Mature rated games to those under 17 years of age in Michigan (story). Here's a bit:
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 14, 2005--The computer and video game industry will file suit in Michigan asking that the state's new video game law be overturned, the Entertainment Software Association announced today. Similar laws were previously found unconstitutional and thrown out in St. Louis, Indianapolis, and Washington State, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

"If this law is implemented, it will not only limit First Amendment rights for Michigan's residents, but, by virtue of its vagueness, it will also create a huge amount of confusion for Michigan's retailers, parents, and video game developers," said Douglas Lowenstein, president of the ESA, the trade group representing U.S. computer and video game publishers. "I'm confident the court will affirm our position given the rulings on similar statutes in other jurisdictions; indeed, the facts, the science, the law, and the U.S. Constitution have not changed since those decisions were handed down."
View : : :
34.
 
Re: CMU didn't need that 1.4$ million anyway
Sep 14, 2005, 23:00
34.
Re: CMU didn't need that 1.4$ million anyway Sep 14, 2005, 23:00
Sep 14, 2005, 23:00
 
I just read a news article on the lawsuit over the Indianapolis arcade game law from 2000 which said that the city of Indianapolis had to pay the IDSA $318,000 in legal fees when the law was found to be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. So, it looks like the state of Michigan could be forced to pay substantial legal fees if the law is found to violate the First Amendment.

That enough of a concession for you? Looks like that makes you wrong on your hypothesis about me.

This comment was edited on Sep 14, 23:23.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
4.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
2.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
3.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
10.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
12.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
5.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
6.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
7.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
11.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
13.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
14.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
18.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
17.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
19.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
8.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
15.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
25.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
26.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
27.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
28.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
29.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
30.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
32.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
33.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
35.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
36.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
37.
Sep 15, 2005Sep 15 2005
38.
Sep 15, 2005Sep 15 2005
 34.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
          Re: CMU didn't need that 1.4$ million anyway
31.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
16.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
22.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
24.
Sep 14, 2005Sep 14 2005
39.
Sep 15, 2005Sep 15 2005
40.
Sep 15, 2005Sep 15 2005
  #37
41.
Sep 15, 2005Sep 15 2005
   Re: #37